Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (And Women)

by

Yes, let’s. Today we praise George Anastaplo: professor of law at Loyola University Chicago, lecturer on the humanities at the Univeristy of Chicago (and elsewhere), famous rejectee of the Illinois Bar, sometime Nobel Peace Prize candidate, and a huge influence on your humble poster. Professor Anastaplo can be impractical in his judicial philosophy (he is generally associated with the “original intent” school of interpretation), but his ideas are never boring, unreasoned, or unresearched.

In particular, I urge you to take a look at his two survey works on Constitutional law: The Constitution of 1787 and The Amendments to the Constitution. Each is accessible to laypeople and lawyers alike, and each provides a better understanding of the history and intent behind the Constitution than any ten thick “Constitutional Law Tomes” combined.

von

3 thoughts on “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (And Women)”

  1. Von,
    You forgot to send these people to the Federalist Papers, as well! Damn lawyers!
    Some youngster once asked me to explain what the Constitution does — I said, it provides for the “structural dispersement of power”
    Succint and accurate, no?
    BTW, Bearin’ arms be a right of the individual person, just like speechifyin’ be an individual right under the First Amendement.

  2. Some youngster once asked me to explain what the Constitution does — I said, it provides for the “structural dispersement of power”
    Succint and accurate, no?
    That’s the best description I’ve heard. The next time I’m asked, I’m gonna steal that description from you, Mr. Davy.
    BTW, Bearin’ arms be a right of the individual person, just like speechifyin’ be an individual right under the First Amendement.
    Well, that’s not so clear (and it looks like you’re referring to a part of the post I took down for length). The text of the amendment itself at least suggests a community right (though there are arguments the other way).
    Here’s the deleted part of the original, to which Navy Davy may be refering:

    *I recalled Prof. Anastaplo while paging through Professor Volohk‘s writings on the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), which generally argue that the Second Amendment is a personal right (like the 1st Amendment) and not merely a right afforded to the state or community (like, for example, the 10th Amendment). Professor Volohk bases his argument, in part, on the supposed original intent of the founders. Professor Anastaplo, on the other hand, argues that the original intent of the founders was precisely the opposite, and reads the Second Amendment to convey a community right. Indeed, in his much-earlier The Amendments to the Constitution, Professor Anastaplo considers and refutes (pre-refutes?) many of Professor Volohk’s better “original intent” arguments. (Which is not to say that Professor Volohk is wrong in his analysis or history — only that it’s not the open-and-shut case sometimes suggested by Professor Volohk.)

Comments are closed.